2011_0425_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Attachment D 45 crime, public security threats, or increased activity for the Police Department. Member Wozniak noted 46 assurances of the Police Department in 2008 of the efficiencies of the Automated Pawn System and 4 7' tracking of potential criminal activity. Member Wozniak concurred with Member Boguszewski that the 148 current staff recommendation seemed to be based on the City Council's previous denial and their 149 findings for that denial, and not based on Planning Commission determinations. 50 Mr. Lloyd noted that staff s recommendation was consistent with previous City Council action taken 51 since the findings and their decision was founded on public testimony provided during those public 52 meetings, and not merely a City Council decision, but based on their reception to public testimony and 5'3 facts presented by the public. 54 Member Wozniak opined that some of the City Council findings were not consistent with facts 55 presented with the last application; and expressed concern that staff was basing their recommendation 56 based solely on the City Council's findings. 5 7' Mr. Lloyd reiterated that staff was basing their recommendation for denial on the findings subsequent to 58 the 2008 application; he opined that since there was nothing to suggest any different outcome between 59 this application and the 2008 application in terms of the relevant facts for such a use; and that staff stood 6o by their recommendation for denial. 61 Member cook questioned if there had been any changes in the Comprehensive Plan since the 2008 case 62 that would impact this application. 63 Mr. Lloyd responded negatively, opining that no Comprehensive Plan or Zoning Code revisions were N' 64, made that would impact whether or not this use was appropriate in this location, other than introductory 65 language in the documents guiding uses to be more explicitly protective of residential neighborhoods. 66 Vice Chair Gisselquist reviewed the Public Hearing and Public Comment protocol for audience 6 7' members wishing to speak. 68 The applicant was not present at tonight's meeting. 69 Public Comment 7'0 In addition to numerous e-mails and phone contacts with staff included in and/or referenced as part of 7'1 the meeting packet, additional e-mails were provided as bench handouts, attached hereto and made a 7'2 part hereof, all in opposition to the proposed pawn shop, with the exception of one (1), phone call 7`3 received by staff seeking additional information, but not ultimately opposed to the proposed use. T14 Vice Chair Gisselquist noted that written comments, via e-mail or other methods, would be entered into 7'5 the official record; and while welcoming public testimony, advised that, in an effort to conserve time,, 7'6 there was not a need to repeat those written comments. 7 . .... 7' Gary Grefenberg, 91 Mid Oaks Lane 7'8 Mr. Grefenberg opined that staff's 2008 recommendation had been wrong and their current recommend 7'9 was accurate. Mr. Grefenberg noted that this current application was also on a different site, and was 80 proposed to immediately adjoin a residential neighborhood, while the 2008 application was surrounding 81 on four (4 , sides by commercial uses. Mr. Grefenberg therefore opined that adverse impacts on the 82 surrounding low- and medium-density residential area would have even more of a negative impact. As a 83 member of the former Comprehensive Plan Update Steering Committee, Mr. Grefenberg opined that the 84, Plan's guidance spoke to this issue and such adverse uses had been part of discussions of the Committee 85 as they reviewed and expressed significant concerns about the decline of "south"' Snelling Avenue, now 86 dominated by rental properties. Mr. Grefenberg opined that, from his perspective, decline was not just a 8 7' cliche",, but a reality for his neighborhood, and based in fact, with many single-family homes on the west 88 side of Snelling transition from owner-occupied to rentals or group homes; and expressed his concern Page 2 of 6